Feeling-Based Immigration Policy

Our Danish correspondent TB pointed us to this July 31st editorial from Politiken by Morten Uhrskov Jensen, concerning the folly of the immigration policy crafted by Denmark’s educated elites. Zonka has kindly translated it into English for Gates of Vienna.

The newspeak of the educated classes and the failure of the Socialists

Denmark parted with a portion of its sovereignty when Parliament in 1983-2002 created the right to family reunions.

by Morten Uhrskov Jensen, Politiken

The Danish Dictionary for the People [Dansk Ordbog for Folket — translator] from 1907 gives the following definition of the word feeling: “an independent part of the life of the spirit, which is manifested through like or dislike, and which follows impressions or perceptions”.

Facing this it defines the word “fact” to mean something that “actually happened”, and the word “actually”, means “really based on facts”. I was reminded of these definitions when on Wednesday July 16 in Deadline I debated with Bjørn Elmquist about my book on Danish immigration politics in the period 1983 to 2008. I shall not elaborate on Bjørn Elmquist, but say only that he is an interesting character, as he is a representative of what we can call “the feeling” person.

Naturally, we’re all feeling people. When I’m interested in the history of Danish immigration policy, it is based on the fact that deep down I have some specific feelings about Denmark and what it means to be a Dane, and, as a consequence, how Denmark executes its immigration policy. This can actually be called “impressions or perceptions” as described in the dictionary from 1907. These impressions made me think ten years ago that Danish immigration policy was on the wrong track. My perceptions about Denmark and what it means to be a Dane indicated that too many people with very alien cultural backgrounds came to Denmark too quickly.

I could have let that be enough. I could have discussed the subject with friends and associates, and I could have written letters to the editor in which I voiced my concerns. But if I didn’t have any personal experiences to draw on, or if I hadn’t investigated the subject more closely, then it would have had to remain based on feelings.

I have gone through certain personal experiences and I have tried to follow the general debate on the subject in the written and electronic press. Thus I found something factual, “based on facts”. When I finished the work on my book Et delt folk [“A divided people” — translator], I had gone through a long list of sources which illuminated the politics as practiced from 1983 to 2008, as revealed in commission reports, in negotiations in Parliament, and not least through the debate in the press. Thus I have arrived at a state of having both feelings and facts, which revealed to me what a number of factual conditions looked like.

It was certainly not a pretty sight, what I saw through these sources. Here I shall briefly go through four of the conclusions I could reach at the end of the task, and a fifth that doesn’t directly follow from my book.
– – – – – – – –
Firstly, it is incontrovertible that Denmark in 1983 parted with an essential portion of its sovereignty, since in this year it became a law that de facto refugees and reunited families had a judicial claim to residency in Denmark. “De facto refugees” is legalese with a rubber definition, since it simply said that “other weighty reasons” besides personal persecution can justify asylum. Denmark had no duty whatsoever to introduce this rule. Parliament did so anyway, and approximately 4,000 people a year got residency due to this legal claim during the period from 1983 to 2002, where Parliament abolished this rule.

The right to family reunions during the period from 1983 to 2002 resulted in approximately 200,000 residency permits. Up until 1992 the lower limit was 15 years (same as the age of consent), thereafter 18 years. The two legal claims in other words added just under 300,000 people to Denmark’s population, mostly from the Third World, most of these from Muslim countries. And again: these legal claims were the same as abolishing Danish sovereignty regarding Denmark’s right to make the sole decision on who would receive access to the country. That is the first fact.

Secondly there is Denmark’s relationship with international conventions. The actual condition is that Denmark is only bound by one thing — through our signature — not to immediately send people back to countries where it must be assumed that they risk torture. We are not required to give such persons residency, but we have chosen to say that we won’t send them back immediately. Denmark could also, in other words, abolish tomorrow the legal claim for [U.N.] convention refugees, a legal claim that has stayed in the immigration laws after the tightening of the laws in 2002.

But the fact was that a long string of opinion-makers throughout the 1980s and 1990s continued to claim that Denmark was either on the verge of breaching international conventions, or had even already breached them. That was never true — and it is perhaps necessary to repeat the word never — when the Center for Human Rights (today the Institute for Human Rights), Amnesty International, Danish Refugee Aid, Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, or Danish Red Cross claimed the opposite. Each and every time they told the Danish public that Denmark would be considered a pariah if the immigration law was tightened too much, they were not telling the truth. That is the second fact.

Thirdly there are the consequences for the affected citizens as a result of massive immigration, in this case particularly the Danes, who lived and live in public housing. All things being equal, we’re talking about Danes who live in relatively the poorest social and economic conditions, and some of whom simply don’t have the financial means to move to another place. These Danes mostly found themselves represented by political parties like the Social Democrats or parties to the left of the Social Democrats. In the period from 1983 up until the elections in 2001, these Danes were systematically betrayed by the parties which traditionally claimed to represent this particular segment of voters. The Danes in public housing experienced alienation in their own local areas. This happened because cultural differences are more concrete in the local areas. These Danes felt in — if not their own bodies, even though that could certainly be the case — their own souls what it meant that the everyday routine wasn’t what it used to be, but instead was transformed into the navigation of an ever narrower tunnel, where the scope of action was increasingly was dictated by the newly arrived.

When I claim that the socially and financially poorest Danes were systematically betrayed by the parties who historically have claimed to speak for them, then the word systematically should be interpreted literally. If we exclude dissidents like then Home Minister Karen Jespersen and several of the mayors in the westernmost part of Greater Copenhagen, then there were was no help to be had from those who had once called themselves the working class parties. Not once did leading members of these parties fight for those Danes who carried the burden of the policy imposed. Instead again and again it was said that racism must be fought, that Danes had to learn to love diversity, and that progress, like a dispirited creature, was heading for the multicultural society. This betrayal of the poorest among the Danes is without any doubt the meanest part of the heritage that the left wing has to bear due to its disrespect for the Danes who didn’t have the possibility of escaping the fantasy of the multicultural society’s blessed bliss. That is the third fact.

Fourthly there is the defamation (libel — ed.) which was expressed against the people who dared to criticize the policy followed up until 2001. And let me just add that the there have also been incidents in the other direction, in the form of statements that I wouldn’t put my name to. But that doesn’t change the fact that the rudeness has been extremely unevenly divided. Allow me a reminder that the educate classes in Denmark, those who have the easiest access to the media — in what approximates a 10:1 share — have been behind the liberal immigration policy that was followed from 1983 until the election in 2001. The educated classes have been able to quibble amongst themselves, but they could uniformly agree on the immediate condemnation of the critics of immigration, and do so using some of the most horrific labels, such as fascism, Nazism, and racism. With the most horrible words in the language the opponents of mass immigration were to be shamed, and they had to understand that they were beyond the pale of all human debate. This libel is particularly infamous in a democracy. In a dictatorship, at least one knows to keep one’s mouth shut. But in a democracy, where opinions should be heard, it is a radical reinterpretation of the term public rule if certain opinions, which are shared by a large part of the electorate, are pre-emptively being ruled out. Then democracy becomes a matter of sensing which way the wind blows, and only then formulating an opinion.

To date it has not been possible to get the opinion-making elites to acknowledge this parade of rudeness. Most likely they believed in the purity of their hearts, and believed that it was only fair that they in their enlightenment had the right to use means which in any other context would be seen for what they really were: incipient totalitarianism. Not totalitarianism in full blossom — it never really succeeded — but the attempt to create another reality, a reality which wasn’t the result of human experience, but instead was an idea about the good, one that couldn’t be contested. The actual defaming of political opponents that took place and the denial of this is the fourth fact.

Fifthly, there is the view of the rest of Europe. One has to be equipped with tunnel vision not to be able to see a long string of European countries which in these years went through demographic and existential changes, changes that first and foremost hit the poorest Europeans. Sweden, when the difference in population is considered, has an incidence of rape that is five times higher than the Danish one. France has ghettos that makes the Danish ones look like cozy little co-ops. In the Netherlands it has become necessary once again to understand what political assassinations are.

The educated classes have no comments on this development. Or if they do, they use newspeak and talk about structural racism and socioeconomic conditions and about the European lower classes lacking the ability to see the shiny multicultural future that waits ahead. The educated classes have thus learned nothing, and nothing is forgotten. That is the fifth fact.

And lastly, about “the feeling person” — we have now come to the point where we can say that the critics of the immigration policy that Denmark has followed, and that a number of European countries continue to follow, have brought forward something factual, that is, something “real, based on facts”. And those who still claim that Denmark from 1983 to 2001 followed a responsible immigration policy — about them we must say that they continue to prefer feeling, which is “an independent part of the life of the spirit, which is manifested through like or dislike, and which follows impressions or perceptions”.

8 thoughts on “Feeling-Based Immigration Policy

  1. A brilliant article. Thanks to Zonka.

    Today I scanned the infomedia (ALL that is printed in danish papers, off line too) for a reaction to Uhrskov by Politiken readers. None ! Remarkable.

  2. For those who can read Danish, I recommend getting a copy of Morten Uhrskov Jensen’s book Et Delt Folk, it is a comprehensive work that covers the story of the Danish Immigration Policy from the making of the “World’s most liberal immigration laws” in 1983 through the system change in 2001 and until present. The book let the sources (parliament debates, and the media coverage of the debate and relates issues) speak for themselves.

    Even though I’m currently only a third of the way through the book, it is scary to see how the elite, the feeling classes, haven’t changed their tune at all (although the class itself have become smaller)… hasn’t learned and is impervious to rational debate and arguments, because they feel that they are right and on the side of Goodness (knows what)…

  3. The “feeling” people though they style themselves the intelligentsia (presumably based on their level of education?) are actually lazy and sloppy intellectually. (One wonders at the education system that produces such disdain for critical reasoning ability until one realizes that it is also dominated by left wingers).

    The misnamed intelligentsia who should be called emotionalistas instead never do or commission proper research to derive facts to weave into a rational argument. No, they merely start policies they “feel” are saintly and/or will buy them votes i.e. aiding the disadvantaged with tax dollars taken from people they “feel” can spare them.

    Because emotionalistas’ policies are based on no research or biased or cherry-picked research, then of course there is also no systematic study of whether the high-minded goals are being met and at what price. What would be the point in their minds? It’s all about feelings and both the emotionalistas and their clients feel good when the former shower the latter with other people’s (tax) money.

    If you show both groups hard evidence e.g. that Democrat Welfare and other entitlement policies have destroyed the black family, neither alters their behavior. Blacks still vote over 90% Democrat who still buy their votes with handouts and the assurance that whites and racism are to blame for every last one of their problems.

    Listening to feelings alone is a foolish way to run one’s own household, (ice cream for dinner again because it feels good!) yet entire countries are run this way.

    Capitalism is such a robust golden goose, that it can pay for a lot of error, and this is what has masked the fecklessness of most elected officials in democracies as well as the permanently left wing bureaucracies lodged in place by left wing governments who then sabotage whatever conservative government manages to get elected.

    However, there comes a day when the golden goose (the makers) is cooked by the leftist middleman to feed the “takers” one last meal and the whole unsustainable system comes crashing down.

  4. I finished reading the anti-multi-culti, anti-mass-immigration book called “Cry Wolf” by Paul Lake tonight in one sitting. It is not a long book, but it is very powerful and neatly delineates all that we are facing. I recommend buying it to all readers of GoV and like-minded blogs. It is available on Amazon now for only a few dollars, and will go on sale on the UK Amazon site on August 13. The book is written by an obscure academic and as such doesn’t have a marketing budget. Please buy it and pass along recommendations to other friends and blogs. We must get this book into the hands of millions of Western people.

  5. A great article. He could have been talking about Britain or I suppose about almost any other Western European country.

    But I’m not so keen on the ‘feeling’ side of his argument. A feeling is something that can’t fully be put into words – but still has meaning. A healthy feeling is a logical reaction to something that really did happen – although in itself it is beyond logic. (I hope I’m making sense!!) The problem isn’t so much that European elites are ‘feelers’ as that they are wishful thinkers. And as Spengler wrote, wishful thinking is cowardice.

  6. Note: This is an Op-Ed piece, not an editorial. It expresses the opinion of the author, not of the publisher.

    That said, it’s a great piece :)n Uhrskov is pulling no punches blasting the multi-culti myth, and his book (which I didn’t read myself) is getting a lot of attention.

    A feeling is something that can’t fully be put into words – but still has meaning.

    It’s an instinctive reaction to what is perceived happening. Has meaning, but is not a complete response.

    A healthy feeling is a logical reaction to something that really did happen – although in itself it is beyond logic.

    I’ll disagree on this one. Dividing feelings into ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ makes little sense (except when talking pathology, of course 🙂 – a feeling is just a feeling.

    What matters is how we react to various feelings, and this, in my view, distinguishes civilization from barbarianism. Some will take their feelings very seriously and react with bursts of anger in retaliation to what triggered that feeling – like we saw with the Motoons.

    Others (too few these days) will, while fully aware of the various emotional reactions, still react with rationality, logic and clarity, aiming for exactly what they want to obtain.

  7. I agree with Henrik – We all have feelings and the difference between the “emotionalistas” (I like that word, thanks Laine) and the “reasonalistas” is that the former act solely (or mostly) on their feelings, while the latter act based on rational thought, perhaps as a reaction to a feeling, but after having thought things through first.

    So I think it is a perfectly rational way to describe the emotionalistas that MUJ have done. And I have seen the very thing play out on the left over the last many years, when trying to debate some issue rationally, you invariably hit a wall, because they haven’t thought the thing through rationally and are thus not prepared to resolve whatever the issue is, unless you just buy their paroles, otherwise you either run into: “Well, in spite of everything, I still believe that I’m doing the right thing!” or more frequently just a bunch of invectives and accusations of being a bad person.

    This happens on the right as well, but with nowhere near the same frequency as on the left and the so-called humanists.

    So having said that I think that “emotionalistas” is a pretty good description of people following their feelings more than reasoned thought.

Comments are closed.